From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!emory!gwinnett!depsych!rc Mon Dec  9 10:47:20 EST 1991
Article 1790 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!emory!gwinnett!depsych!rc
>From: rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Carlson's claim that dialectic cannot be formalized
Message-ID: <ZB50BB1w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM>
Date: 1 Dec 91 13:51:10 GMT
References: <rreiner.691528965@yorku.ca>
Lines: 72

rreiner@nexus.yorku.ca (Richard Reiner) writes:

> Some time ago, Richard Carlson claimed in this group that dialectical
> reasoning cannot be formalized.  (It may be recalled that he offered
> this claim without argument.)
> 
> Quite by chance, I have just come across a (fairly old and moderately
> well-known) attempt to do exactly that:
>  
>     Churchman, C. (1971). The design of inquiring systems.  New York:
>     Basic Books.
> 
> A short and readable overview of Churchman's work on dialectical
> inquiry systems, and some commentary, can be found in
> 
>     Dacey, R. (1981).  "An interrogative account of the dialectical
>     inquiring system based upon the economic theory of information".
>     Synthese 47:43-55.
> 
> Perhaps it would be illuminating if Mr. Carlson were to try to say
> exactly why Churchman's attempt fails.

These are interesting looking references and I've printed them out
and stuck them in by briefcase so that I can check them out next
time I go to the library.  (I'm still reading some basics in an
effort to try to catch up with the rest of the folks in the
Newsgroup.)  The interesting thing is that somebody made the
attempt.  Consider these sentiments by Victor Yodaiken, which I
find hard to understand:

RC:
>You didn't think Hofstadter's account was any good?  Or is it that
>you think dialectical thinking is inherently flawed?  (Last night

VY:
>I think that Hofstadter's account is a kind of Klassic Kartoon version
>of an idea that is either trite or mystical mush. And loose analogies
>between mathematical theories, e.g. topology or non-linear systems theory,
>and the process of understanding or the inner life of the soul, or
>the godess principle or whatever, don't appeal to me.

Is Churchman's formulation one of those "loose analogies?"
Keep that question in mind as you read the remainder of the
article.

RC:
>I watched a discussion between psychologist Jeffrey Mishlove, the
>host of PBS's _Thinking Allowed_ and a biologist named Rupert
>Sheldrake.  Sheldrake argued that "creativity" involved the
>Sheldrake.  Sheldrake argued that "creativity" involved the
>"synthesis" of "opposing" "ideas."  Hmm, I thought, another
>scientist reinventing the dialectic.)

VY:
>Well, it's not a particularly deep concept, is it? It's not like
>he stumbled on Lagrange's theorem or quicksort or  the infield fly rule
>or anything else that you need a minute or two of work to comprehend.

Here he seems to be saying that the dialectic is so obvious it
doesn't need to be studied.  Is that why analytic theorists don't
study it?  Or is it that it can't be studied with analytic methods
(because you produce only those "loose analogies")?  Is _he_
saying that it _can't_ be formalized?  (These aren't rhetorical
questions.  I really don't see the point of view being expressed.
Hmm, maybe this is one of those times when irony got in the way of
clear communication.)

--
Richard Carlson        |    rc@depsych.gwinnett.COM
Midtown Medical Center |    {rutgers,ogicse,gatech}!emory!gwinnett!depsych!rc
Atlanta, Georgia       |
(404) 881-6877         |


